Let's explore the rich culture, beautiful scenic view, delicious and colorful gourmet,high infrastructure, high life-style, tourist spot, people and educational activities of Korea from my window called the "MYSTIC KOREA".

Monday, November 5, 2012

'Dancing together' with Dokdo issue

This
is the 13th in a series of contributed articles by international and
Korean experts shedding light on Japan’s claim to Korea’s easternmost
islets of Dokdo and other affairs that illustrate Japan’s lack of
remorse over misdeeds it has committed. ― ED

“Dancing
together” is a skill of diplomacy that may apply even between enemies
who share the common goal of generating political gain in each other’s
jurisdiction by dancing together.

Of
course, initial responsibility for this dispute lies among the leaders
of an elite Japanese group. They never heartily recognized the harm they
inflicted on neighboring peoples before and during the colonial war
period.

Obviously, they do not have genuine
intentions to pay reparations to the “comfort” women or their
descendants and to correct ultra-right wing views as described in their
history books for the next generation of Korean and Japanese students.

Without
solving this puzzle by themselves, how can historical healing and
mutually-beneficial coexistence between former colonial powers and
colonized countries begin in Northeast Asia?

Korean
politicians are also to blame. Their excuse to escalate the territorial
dispute with Japan is to pressure the Japanese leadership to solve the
historical puzzle.

However, they are well aware that
territorial escalations will only delay any problem-solving efforts
between neighboring countries.

By creating headlining tensions between Seoul and Tokyo, political leaders on both sides are seeking immediate political gains.

Indeed,
the falling level of popularity of the political leaderships in Korea
and Japan is due to their respective current hard-line policies against
each other.

Tacit agreement of “dancing together” between political leaders across the East Sea seems to exist and functions well.

Other
than this popularity gain that is evanescent, there is nothing to gain
from engaging in a hot debate over the islands between the neighboring
countries.

The status quo is that Dokdo is under
Korean sovereignty, and has effectively been occupied by Korea for more
than half a century.

Experts acknowledge that the
basic position of the Japanese government is not to break that status
quo ― despite its political gesture of occasional protests ­― because
such breakage may only generate more troubling confrontations with the
neighboring states including China.

This means that there is no need for Korea to escalate the territorial dispute with Japan.

Any
further escalation will only make it more difficult to solve bilateral
problems, and have ramifications for economic, social and military
relations between the two countries.

Already,
serious symptoms are evident: for example, the only market in which the
invisible-horse dance by the Korean singer Psy is not popular is Japan.

At
the same time, Korean and Japanese leaders need to be aware that their
dancing together will necessarily induce the Chinese leadership into the
political popularity game.

Having its own
territorial dispute over the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands with Tokyo, Beijing
cannot afford to remain silent. Indeed, the territorial confrontation
has become an infectious disease in the region.

While
global society is actively engaging in dialogues to pursue
comprehensive regional economic integrations such as Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), ASEAN plus Six, and Pan-European Cumulation Zone,
Northeast Asia is struggling with a vicious cycle of debate over
territories.

It seems impossible to initiate talks
for the Korea-China-Japan trilateral Free Trade Agreement any time soon,
not to mention any genuine arrangements for financial, cultural and
environmental cooperation in the region.

One may
hope that politicians will cool down soon, and stop exploiting the
corrosive emotions of people and stimulating ultra-right groups in both
nations.

If this hope is helpless, and if their
dancing together doesn’t cease, it might become inevitable for the
international community to intervene in order to prevent a serious
crisis in Northeast Asia.

Indeed, it is likely that
Japan will unilaterally send a written submission to the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) soon, stating its claim over Dokdo.

It is true that without consent of the Korean government, the ICJ cannot exercise jurisdiction over the dispute.

Nonetheless,
upon further escalation, the Security Council of the United Nations
might confirm the existence of this international dispute (despite the
persistent denial of it by the Korean government) and recommend that
Korea and Japan solve the dispute peacefully under the United States
judicial system.

As a responsible member of the U.N.
system, with its citizen being the secretary general, Korea cannot
continuously ignore such recommendation.

Unfortunately
for Korea, it is obvious that the current political atmosphere in the
region seems to drive the Korean people gradually into this possible
scenario.

Although politicians are short-sighted,
bureaucrats and people in Korea need to be prepared for that possibility
on a long term basis.

Their preparation should start by answering a series of questions: Is Korea ready for legal debates in the international court?

While
the final text of the San Francisco Peace Treaty of 1952 is silent
about the territorial ownership over Dokdo, can Korea still persuade ICJ
judges by relying upon its drafting context in which colonial
imperialism of Japan is generally condemned?

Can
Korea make a credible and acceptable submission based on the ancient
Korean record called the “Samguk Sagi”, which refers to a Korean general
named Yi Sa-bu who conquered the Usan Kingdom, which allegedly included
Ulleung Island and its satellite Dokdo?

How can
Korea prove that its occupation of Dokdo over 60 years is “continuous
and peaceful control” while Japan has regularly expressed its opposition
and protest against the Korean occupation?

If
answers to these questions are not apparent or if the answer is not
confidently “yes,” my recommendation to the Korean people is that they
should spend precious time and energy studying hard to substantiate
their claims, instead of going out on the streets where disputes will
only escalate.

Plus, they should remember not to vote for those politicians who imposed those questions on them.